And now we know the underlying reason..

[SunsetBengal]

(02-12-2017, 07:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmmmm. That list doesn't seem so lengthy as all that. Here are two reasons why.

1. Did you notice the graphic with your wiki article? It shows how anomalous are the contrarian views of the signers of your list of scientists opposing the scientific consensus on global warming.

2. If you start going down that list, the oddities begin to appear, starting with the first name, David Bellamy, who came out for global warming, then changed his mind in 2004 based upon stats from a Science which was apparently a hoax. His own credibility destroyed, he has backed out of the climate debate.

Lennart Bengtson, the second signer, appears to have also retracted an initial claim that climate scientists were covering up evidence.

Third name, Piers Corbyn, has a Masters degree in Astrophysics and runs a business for predicting changes in weather, so not really climate scientist, but a participant in Heartland Institute conferences--funded by Big Oil.  etc. etc. etc.

The email scandal referred to in your links to British papers was rather well known in the U.S. It was heavily investigated in the UK, with same result as voter fraud scandals in the U.S.--nothing there.

Look, I realize that humans have an effect on Earth and the atmosphere.  I'm just saying that it is being exaggerated for purposes of fulfilling some sort of agenda.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

Quote:The whistleblower is a man called Dr John Bates, who until last year was one of two NOAA ‘principal scientists’ working on climate issues. And as he explained to the MoS, one key concern is the reliability of new data on sea temperatures issued in 2015 at the same time as the Pausebuster paper.

RELATED ARTICLES

• Previous
• 1
• Next
  

• Back to work! The Obamas hire managers for upcoming speech...Trump could tear up Paris climate change agreement 'as early...
  

Share this article
Share
It turns out that when NOAA compiled what is known as the ‘version 4’ dataset, it took reliable readings from buoys but then ‘adjusted’ them upwards – using readings from seawater intakes on ships that act as weather stations.
They did this even though readings from the ships have long been known to be too hot.
No one, to be clear, has ‘tampered’ with the figures. But according to Bates, the way those figures were chosen exaggerated global warming.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html#ixzz4YVq7JEYv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook